SHEELA BANJARE Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since all the three appeals arise out of a common judgment, they are decided together.

(2.) The appeals are directed against the judgment dated 29.5.2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Katghora, Korba in Sessions Trial No.85 of 2012, whereby the Appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under: Appellant Conviction Sentence Appellant Under Section 366 of Rigorous Imprisonment Smt. Sheela the Indian Penal Code for 5 years and fine of Banjare Rs.500/- with default stipulation Appellant Under Section 363 of Rigorous Imprisonment Panchanand the Indian Penal Code for 2 years and fine of Mahanand Rs.500/- with default stipulation Under Section 366 of Rigorous Imprisonment the Indian Penal Code for 5 years and fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation Appellant Under Section 363 of Rigorous Imprisonment Bairagi Prasad the Indian Penal Code for 2 years and fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation Under Section 366 of Rigorous Imprisonment the Indian Penal Code for 5 years and fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation Under Section 376 of Rigorous Imprisonment the Indian Penal Code for 10 years and fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation

(3.) Facts of the case, in brief, are that on the relevant date, age of the prosecutrix (PW1) was about 12 years. On 20.2.2012, Baghel Bagh (PW2), father of the prosecutrix lodged a report of missing of the prosecutrix that she was missing since 19.2.2012 7:00 p.m. It was also informed by him that Appellant Bairagi Prasad, who was a resident of his locality, had also disappeared. This information was recorded in Rojnamcha Sanha (Ex.P20). On 21.2.2012, First Information Report (Ex.P21) was also lodged by Baghel Bag (PW2) in which he suspected that the prosecutrix would have run away with Appellant Bairagi Prasad. On 8.5.2012, the prosecutrix met. Her recovery panchnama (Ex.P9) was prepared. Her statement was recorded in which she disclosed that Appellants Panchanand Mahanand and Bairagi Prasad had forcefully abducted her and taken her away in an auto of Dharmendra Kumar Choudhary (acquitted accused). Thereafter, Appellant Bairagi took her to the house of Appellant Sheela Banjare. Thereafter, he took her to different places and kept her there. During this period, he continued to commit forcible sexual intercourse with her. She was medically examined by Dr. V. Rawte (PW6). Her report is Ex.P7 in which it was found that hymen of the prosecutrix was old ruptured and her vagina was admitting one finger. It is reported that sexual intercourse was done with the prosecutrix, but no definite opinion could be given regarding recent sexual intercourse with her. Statements of other witnesses were also recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed. Charges were framed against the accused persons.